Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s State Epidemiologist during Covid, has made his written submission to the U.K. Covid Inquiry, and it contains a “barrage of uncomfortable facts delivered in typical Nordic deadpan”, says UnHerd‘s Freddie Sayers. Here’s an excerpt.
Tegnell, both revered and reviled as the architect of Sweden’s more laissez-faire Covid response, begins by restating the fundamentals in answer to a series of written questions. What was Sweden’s approach to lockdowns? “No formal lockdown used.” What about so-called “circuit-breaker” mini lockdowns? “None used.” And what was the overall result in terms of excess deaths, or the number of people who died as a result of the Covid period? “Excess mortality differs slightly depending on the method but Sweden is at the same level as the Nordic countries and sometimes lower. The U.K. has a considerably higher excess mortality.” Ouch.
Frankly, Dr. Tegnell needn’t have said anything else. The combination of these two datapoints alone — that the only country in Europe to avoid lockdowns entirely emerged with the lowest excess death count of the whole continent — should be enough for any fair-minded evaluation of the evidence to conclude that lockdowns were a mistake. The minimum evidential threshold for a policy experiment so radical and so destructive to society must surely be that it definitely saved lives; this threshold was not met, and in fact the Swedish example suggests that the policy may well have cost lives in the longer term.
The reason the inquiry invited Dr. Tegnell to answer questions was to convict Boris Johnson of recklessness in not imposing a second lockdown sooner in September 2020. Tegnell attended a now-famous Zoom meeting with Johnson and Sunak alongside Professors Sunetra Gupta, Carl Heneghan and John Edmunds in that month, to hear from alternative voices. The theory is that they delayed the autumn lockdown in part as a result of this meeting.
In his evidence to the inquiry, Tegnell meticulously avoids the traps being set for him, insisting that on the Zoom call he shared information about the Swedish experience but avoided giving specific advice about whether the U.K. should lock down or not. Indeed, in a memo written to the U.K. Government at the time and shared with the inquiry this week, he concludes that the U.K. should take action of some kind, but in doing so should be guided by evidence.
“The short answer to the question [of whether the U.K. Government should intervene] is in my opinion yes,” he wrote in September 2020. “The myth that Sweden did nothing during the pandemic is false. We have initiated a wide range of activities not least in the area of communication.” There was advice to work from home where possible, for example, and to self-isolate while you are symptomatic.
But throughout, Tegnell relentlessly places emphasis on the need for evidence: if he was not convinced that a particular measure provably worked (for example mandating face masks) he refused to introduce it. As a result, except a few notices on trains for some months in 2021, Sweden avoided face-masks entirely.
Perhaps the most interesting section of Dr Tegnell’s evidence is his analysis of the impact of the Swedish constitution. Unlike in most parliamentary democracies including the U.K., Swedish politicians are forbidden from interfering in the work of the Government agencies, including the health agency. …
In other words, the real reason Sweden resisted the global rush to lockdowns in 2020 was that its technocrats (such as Tegnell) were all-powerful. … It’s a paradox that will not sit well with many anti-lockdown campaigners who see the evil technocracy as the problem, and want to sweep away the ‘blob’.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It’s probably better it was in written form as in person he would have been talked over and belittled by the KC’s to achieve their goal of a whitewash and the belief that the UK should have had lockdown sooner and a range of other draconian measures instead of the more sensible targeted approach like the Great Barrington Declaration.
No doubt though that the Good Lady will take full note of all matters raised and adjudicate accordingly…..
Ha. Ha. Ha…
Ha.
Aren’t you supposed to add (sarcasm)!
“I am not interested in contributions.”
Would probably be clueless Keith’s response to Tegnell’s last point.
The whole enquiry is dripping with bien pensant, leftist arrogance. Shut it down and start again with a balanced panel of judges.
I don’t think we really want “judges”, do we? I think the public should judge. What we want is adversarial advocates who are batting for different teams, different points of view, able to call witnesses to testify under oath, treat them as hostile, subpoena evidence and largely set their own agenda – that might produce something worth paying attention to. The US Senate manages something similar.
There are technocrats and technocrats. Though to be more precise, there are technocrats, and people like Tegnell who are content to give expert advice.
Sits perfectly well with me. Leave the people to decide and the people would have come to the same conclusion i.e. any natural threat will be handled in accordance with the level that threat naturally poses. A technocrat is simply the mouthpiece of one group. Tegnell spoke for the people. Bypass Tegnell and we’re back to the people.
Sweden relied on a concept that seems to have disappeared here – personal responsibility. Our government no longer believes we can act responsibly without their direction. Well that may be some for some, but to impose that on all of us was appalling.
DO watch the YouTube videos of the WHO takeover debate in the House, with Andrew Bridgen, and one by John Campbell.
They are DAMNING. Bridgen nails what the WHO are up to. And if they get their way, mass non-compliance must be the order of the day.
Campbell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkhjH2ySMUw&pp=ygUSd2hvIHRyZWF0eSBkZWJhdGUg
Can’t find the other at the moment…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9rRbVycNQk
In other words, the real reason Sweden resisted the global rush to lockdowns in 2020 was that its technocrats (such as Tegnell) were all-powerful. … It’s a paradox that will not sit well with many anti-lockdown campaigners who see the evil technocracy as the problem, and want to sweep away the ‘blob’.
Not really. Technocrat or politician, theirs were a bit more honest and followed evidence, ours not at all. The decisions to be made should always have been taken by politicians who are accountable and consider the trade offs. Just that politicians everywhere cocked up in the same way at the same time.
“Just that politicians everywhere cocked up in the same way at the same time.”
You don’t believe that tof.
‘There was no pandemic.’ And so no cock-ups.
Indeed I do not believe that. I am not sure exactly what did happen and why, but I cannot believe that they all honestly thought that they were saving granny.
People continue to characterise Sweden’s approach as no lockdown. This lets our opponents assume a massive free-for-all of recklessness.
The key distinction is that Sweden had no state-mandated lockdown. They treated their citizens like adults. Almost everyone dialed back their mingling, but people got on with their lives.
Some people wanted to isolate, the rest were respectful of this. There was no curtain twitching, no grassing on your neighbours, no calling people covidiots, no school closures, etc.
True though public gatherings with more than 50 (I think) people were banned and I think 16-18 year groups at school were sent home for a while
But certainly when we went in October 2020 the atmosphere felt normal albeit Stockholm was pretty quiet due to people working from home and not many tourists
The Google earth data is pretty clear. Normal life persisted in Sweden, in total contrast to the rest of western Europe. This idea of a voluntary lock down is bs, ppl at risk and cautious probably mingled less but that’s about it. Ppl who could worked at home more often. Ppl met in homes, restaurants and bars stayed open as did schools. Ppl continued to go to the gym. I’d say the ban on mass gathering was still completely OTT but I don’t believe in any such restrictions under any circumstances. I think ppl have totally forgotten how bonkers it all was, particularly recall the council putting scaffolding around a childs slide.
That’s what I meant. Common sense was allowed to prevail. Trust your population rather than smother them in nonsense rules.
Well they either characterise it as being recklessly no-lockdown, or they say it did lock down really because there were a few rules, or they say that either way it didn’t need a lockdown because Swedes are such great people and no one lives within ten miles of another human being anyway (not sure why Ferguson’s model didn’t take that into account, and still predicted apocalypse if it didn’t lock down, but never mind).
And some fell on stony ground. …
‘….the real reason Sweden resisted the global rush to lockdowns in 2020 was that its technocrats (such as Tegnell) were all-powerful. It’s a paradox that will not sit well with many anti-lockdown campaigners who see the evil technocracy as the problem, and want to sweep away the ‘blob’.’
Hmmm……didn’t Tegnell end up getting sidelined? But the citizenry listened to him because he radiated competence and integrity.
In fact it was our technocrats who were all powerful: ‘The Science’
Gumby Whitty bossed Bunter.
But ours were Vicars of Bray turning and twisting to the winds of the U.S., the EU and W.H.O., politicians themselves within a global cabal of internationalist health functionaries out of control, still out of democratic control.
We also have a systemic problem of culture in Whitehall. Independence of thought is deprecated instead of encouraged.
We really are going to need a better ‘blob’
“We also have a systemic problem of culture in Whitehall. Independence of thought is deprecated instead of encouraged.”
Yeah, well, here and it seems everywhere else, some places a bit better, some much worse. All at the same time, in very similar ways, using similar language. Blaming events here on figures and factors specific to the UK doesn’t make sense (though of course the ex-PM and others are culpable).
Of course it makes sense, in a U.K. context.
We can’t fix the world, but we are entitled to debate how we might try to improve our own country, where we at least have a vote.
But yes, the World Health Organisation suffered, is suffering, a bad case of mission creep.
Similar actions took place in many developed countries very much due to a lack of capacity for, encouragement of, independent thought within the functionary class and society at large.
Socialist fascism.
“We can’t fix the world, but we are entitled to debate how we might try to improve our own country”
True but in doing that we need to recognise the global context. You say the WHO suffered from “mission creep” – this is doubtless true (and inevitable, that’s exactly what any body will do if allowed to) but how come almost every world government allowed it to suffer from mission creep?
Because they don’t control the W.H.O.
A lot of its funding is private.
Well some of it is private but it only has the power it’s given by members who choose to follow its directives and who are eager to sign up to its “treaties”
There is a great deal of control over the W.H.O.
‘…..over 80 per cent of WHO’s funding relies on “voluntary contributions,” meaning any amount of money given freely by donors, whether member states, NGOs, philanthropic organisations or other private entities.
These voluntary contributions are typically earmarked for specific projects or diseases,’
But not from those who should control it, our representatives:
‘….the sheer size of the funds from the Gates Foundation compromises WHO’s independence.’
Euronews.next 030223
Unfortunately the W.H.O. still thinks it is doing a great job.
Certainly, within the U.S. that opinion is not widely shared.
‘Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup opened today’s hearing by detailing four major examples of the WHO bowing to political pressure from the CCP: “We saw the WHO deny that COVID-19 was spread via human-to-human transmission, based entirely on the word of the Chinese government. The WHO delayed naming COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, a World Health Organization procedure that, amongst other things, would have allowed for the procurement and distribution of scarce supplies, all because the Chinese Communist Party told them the spread was under control. The WHO delayed serious measures to counter the global spread of COVID-19, because the CCP was only worried about their own bottom line. When the WHO produced a report evaluating the possible origins of COVID-19, it became unquestionably evident that the entire report was nothing but more Chinese propaganda.”
Dr. Atul Gawande, Assistant Administrator for Global Health at USAID, recognized the failures of the WHO during the COVID-19 pandemic
“We want respect for our sovereignty, and so we also limit how much WHO can control or demand things of us. And that is one of the challenges here, that we are protective of our own sovereignty and therefore do not want to have those tools challenged or potentially challenge us or other Member States.
14 Dec 2023 U.S. Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing
It would be good to hear something similar from our own government, but Gumby Whitty is thick as thieves with Farrar, now Chief Scientist at W.H.O.
Both are also close to Pantsdown. They, together with the well named Hancock, Cummings, Gove all conspired together in the biggest health policy disaster this country has ever seen, which what passes for ‘the establishment’ today are now conspiring to cover up.
Didn’t Trump withdraw the US from the WHO?
And yet:
WHO DECIDES WHAT IS IN THE PANDEMIC ACCORD?The pandemic accord is being determined by governmental leaders from 194 countries through an ongoing negotiation process, facilitated by the World Health Organization (WHO). Once the final agreement is decided, each country will choose whether to be a party to it.
The Pandemic Accord Explained: What Countries are Doing to Protect Against Future Global Health Emergencies (unfoundation.org)
I have yet to see compelling evidence that this was a “health policy disaster” which suggests sincere intentions. We shall never know for sure I suspect.
Amnesty wrote a report on the health policy disaster:
‘…..the government must learn lessons from its disastrous decisions and not repeat the same mistakes.’
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/care-homes-report
Sorry obviously missing the point but don’t see how what you’ve linked to is connected to what we’re discussing or this thread in general.
Yeah fair points but the whole crux of Tegnell’s argument and the whole inquiry pantomime must still revolve around Covid death figures which were, as we all know, made up entirely of globally synchronised lying.
As Normal Fenton points out, the UK government’s official Covid death figures between 2020 and 2021 were 137,000. The ONS death figures directly from Covid via a Fenton FOI for the same period are 6,183.
This was one giant globally synchronised exaggeration festival. Much like they tried with previous ‘pandemics’ like Swine flu, but this time they fist slammed all the right behavioural nudge buttons. So while it’s interesting to see Tegnell up there, it still doesn’t take a spade anywhere near the central pyramid of bullshit.
“ it still doesn’t take a spade anywhere near the central pyramid of bullshit.”
Very well put. There was no pandemic, no “emergency”, nothing that should have got close to the radar of the state looking to react in any unusual way.
Absolutely.
I do not see a paradox
the blob was frantic for more and sooner. There has been no persuasive evidence of calls for restraint by the blob, in which I include the academics they appointed and followed.
Tegnell submitted his written evidence months ago. Having seen the way the inquiry is going he clearly decided he could stay silent no longer.
Vindicated at last!
Tegnell was an expert in his field who also had the courage of his convictions to do what he knew was best.
Our hapless duo of Whitless and Unballanced where mediocrities who looked over the fence at China and Italy and copied what they where doing.
Where’s your evidence that Whitty and Vallance are “mediocrities”? Funny that pretty much every other “public health” “expert” on the planet turned out to be equally “mediocre” at the same time. I keep banging on about this but I think the problem is to do with character, honesty, motivation, not with “competence”. To get to the top in any field connected to the state you need to be politically savvy.
Nah. They were definitely coming under pressure from the politicians, forbidden or not… The real difference is that the ‘technocrats’ knew that they would be held accountable for their decisions.
No opportunity to gaslight later with:
There are dangers when unelected officials get to decide what happens. The Swedish model is not necessarily good. If we had had that in the UK, the civil service would have had people in camps for breaching lockdown rules.
But would whoever made such a decision be held accountable for it later? In terms of being fired from their jobs if they got it badly wrong? Or doing jail time if they went beyond their powers? Or being pilloried if found to be hypocrites?
But they wouldn’t ever be found to have got it badly wrong, other than not having put ENOUGH people in camps SOON and HARD and WIDELY enough of course.
What got me was the labour opposition gleefully supporting every lockdown measure knowing that they would finally rid themselves of the fiscally Incompetent tag and now they’ve passed that tag to the Conservative Party. Poor Bojo couldn’t see it.
I think Johnson saw it coming. The government was borrowing hand over fist and he knew it would have to be paid for/paid back.
I’m reminded of this brief scene from The Simpsons: That’s a problem for future Homer. Man I don’t envy that guy.
Not sure where the words “came out better” are quoted from, as they don’t appear in Tegnell’s submission (although they are of course true!). Having read through his submission, I’d say that “devastating” is a slightly overblown description of it, at least in view of the likely effect it no doubt had on Hallett et al. A lot of the 91 answers he gives are of the “Don’t know/not enough information yet/not my area” type. A number of these answers convey important information, but I’d describe only one or two as fundamentally, crucially important: his answer to Q40, for instance:
“Sweden’s constitutional order does not allow for the declaration of a state
of emergency. Fundamental civil rights and freedoms can only be
suspended in the case of war. Public health emergencies are therefore
regulated by ordinary law, which allocates responsibilities. It is legally
impossible to enforce a General quarantine or ‘lockdown’ measures.”
Tegnell’s answers to Qs 43-72 can be summed up by saying that, given the legal impossibility of enforcing a ‘general quarantine’ (lockdown), there never was one. The population was ‘advised’ but only in extremely circumstances coerced – eg masking on trains and buses, briefly in 2021, ‘limited’ air travel restrictions etc – very little of which was legally binding. [All this should have applied in the UK too, of course]
(Q74) On ‘super-spreader’ events:
‘No increase in cases was seen after the event [Eurovision] so it cannot be called super
spreading. Actually the geographic area were the event took place had a
lower level of spread at that time than cities on the other side of the
border ie in Denmark.’
(Q84) On Swedish mortality (the last sentence of which is most significant):
“Death rates are higher in Sweden than our Nordic neighbours but lower
that the UK. Exact data can be taken from a number of sources, as I am
sure you are aware. Excess mortality differs slightly depending on the
method but Sweden is at the same level as the Nordic countries and
sometimes lower. UK has a considerable higher excess mortality.”
(Q85) Sweden, according to the Hallett Enquiry, has been criticised by other countries:
Tegnell’s response: ” In general, they have asked for stronger more legally enforced measures often due to a lack of understanding of the actual situation.”
Devasting stuff, if you’re prepared to be devastated. My suspicion is that the Hallett Enquiry is only too pleased to minimise Tegnell’s comments and not be remotely devastated. That’s the problem we’ve got.
Says it all for me! and I love the embedded video from Vaxi Taxi.
https://thewhiterose.uk/the-milgram-and-asch-experiments/
How about Anders replacing Hallett?
It would mean tearing up and wasting the pre-prepared report though – what a waste!